CIT v. Southern Petrochemicals Industries Corporation Ltd.

292 ITR 362High Court2007#15619 most cited
6

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 292,668 Indian tax judgments — from 2009 to 2017.

Judgments citing CIT v. Southern Petrochemicals Industries Corporation Ltd.

M/S. KLA INDIA PUBLIC LTD.,DELHI vs. JCIT, ROHTAK

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 3332/DEL/2014[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Mar 2017AY 2010-11

Bench: : Shri H.S. Sidhu & Shri L.P. Sahu

For Appellant: Sh. Gautam Jain, AdvocateFor Respondent: Sh. Umesh Chand Dubey, Sr. DR

…v). Capital Bus Service (P) Ltd. v. CIT, 123 ITR 404. v). CIT v. Oswal Agro Mills Ltd., 341 ITR 467 vi). CIT v. Insilco Ltd., 320 ITR 322 vii). CIT v. Radio Today Broadcasting Ltd., 382 ITR 42 (Del.) viii). CIT v. Soughern Petrochemical Industries Corpn. Ltd. 292 ITR 362 6. It was also submitted that even otherwise the ld. CIT(A) failed to appreciate that sortex machine and generator were also plant and machinery and form the part of block of asset and therefore, there is no justification to disallow part of depreciation from the said block of assets. 5 ITA No.3332/Del./2014 7. On the other hand, the ld. DR r…

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. INSILCO LTD.

In the result, the question of law framed by us is answered in favour

ITA/873/2008HC Delhi27 Feb 2009

Bench: The Tribunal Against The Order Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) [Hereinafter Referred To As The „Cit(A)‟] Allowing Deduction On Account Of Provision Made By

For Appellant: Ms Prem Lata Bansal, Mr Sanjeev Rajpal & Mr MohanFor Respondent: Mr V.P. Gupta & Mr Basant Kumar

…ted that the CIT(A) had given a clear finding of fact that the spare parts were readily available for use as and when required. Applying the judgment of the Madras High Court in the case of CIT vs Southern Petrochemicals Industries Corporation Ltd; (2007) 292 ITR 362 the ITA 873/2008 & 1156/2008 Page 10 of 25 Tribunal allowed the claim of the assessee for depreciation on “critical spare parts of plant and machinery kept as stand by”. 12. The Revenue being aggrieved, preferred an appeal as indicated above to this Court. 13. We have heard the learned counsel for the Revenue, Ms Prem Lata Bansal…

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-IV, NEW DELHI vs. INSILCO LIMITED

In the result, the question of law framed by us is answered in favour

ITA-1156/2008HC Delhi27 Feb 2009

Bench: The Tribunal Against The Order Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) [Hereinafter Referred 2009:Dhc:678-Db

For Appellant: Ms Prem Lata Bansal, Mr Sanjeev Rajpal & Mr MohanFor Respondent: Mr V.P. Gupta & Mr Basant Kumar

…ted that the CIT(A) had given a clear finding of fact that the spare parts were readily available for use as and when required. Applying the judgment of the Madras High Court in the case of CIT vs Southern Petrochemicals Industries Corporation Ltd; (2007) 292 ITR 362 the 2009:DHC:678-DB Tribunal allowed the claim of the assessee for depreciation on “critical spare parts of plant and machinery kept as stand by”. 12. The Revenue being aggrieved, preferred an appeal as indicated above to this Court. 13. We have heard the learned counsel for the Revenue, Ms Prem Lata Bansal and for the assessee, Mr V.P.…

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-IV, NEW DELHI vs. INSILCO LIMITED

In the result, the question of law framed by us is answered in favour

ITA-873/2008HC Delhi27 Feb 2009

Bench: The Tribunal Against The Order Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) [Hereinafter Referred 2009:Dhc:679-Db

For Appellant: Ms Prem Lata Bansal, Mr Sanjeev Rajpal & Mr MohanFor Respondent: Mr V.P. Gupta & Mr Basant Kumar

…ted that the CIT(A) had given a clear finding of fact that the spare parts were readily available for use as and when required. Applying the judgment of the Madras High Court in the case of CIT vs Southern Petrochemicals Industries Corporation Ltd; (2007) 292 ITR 362 the 2009:DHC:679-DB Tribunal allowed the claim of the assessee for depreciation on “critical spare parts of plant and machinery kept as stand by”. 12. The Revenue being aggrieved, preferred an appeal as indicated above to this Court. 13. We have heard the learned counsel for the Revenue, Ms Prem Lata Bansal and for the assessee, Mr V.P.…

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. INSILCO LIMITED

In the result, the question of law framed by us is answered in favour

ITA - 1156 / 2008HC Delhi27 Feb 2009

Bench: The Tribunal Against The Order Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) [Hereinafter Referred 2009:Dhc:678-Db

For Appellant: Ms Prem Lata Bansal, Mr Sanjeev Rajpal & Mr MohanFor Respondent: Mr V.P. Gupta & Mr Basant Kumar

…ted that the CIT(A) had given a clear finding of fact that the spare parts were readily available for use as and when required. Applying the judgment of the Madras High Court in the case of CIT vs Southern Petrochemicals Industries Corporation Ltd; (2007) 292 ITR 362 the 2009:DHC:678-DB Tribunal allowed the claim of the assessee for depreciation on “critical spare parts of plant and machinery kept as stand by”. 12. The Revenue being aggrieved, preferred an appeal as indicated above to this Court. 13. We have heard the learned counsel for the Revenue, Ms Prem Lata Bansal and for the assessee, Mr V.P.…

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. INSILCO LTD.

In the result, the question of law framed by us is answered in favour

ITA - 873 / 2008HC Delhi27 Feb 2009

Bench: The Tribunal Against The Order Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) [Hereinafter Referred 2009:Dhc:679-Db

For Appellant: Ms Prem Lata Bansal, Mr Sanjeev Rajpal & Mr MohanFor Respondent: Mr V.P. Gupta & Mr Basant Kumar

…ted that the CIT(A) had given a clear finding of fact that the spare parts were readily available for use as and when required. Applying the judgment of the Madras High Court in the case of CIT vs Southern Petrochemicals Industries Corporation Ltd; (2007) 292 ITR 362 the 2009:DHC:679-DB Tribunal allowed the claim of the assessee for depreciation on “critical spare parts of plant and machinery kept as stand by”. 12. The Revenue being aggrieved, preferred an appeal as indicated above to this Court. 13. We have heard the learned counsel for the Revenue, Ms Prem Lata Bansal and for the assessee, Mr V.P.…

CIT v. Southern Petrochemicals Industries Corporation Ltd. (292 ITR 362) — Cited in 6 Judgments | BharatTax